Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts correct sentences that fail to specify concurrent or consecutive terms? State v. Watring Explained
Summary
Watring was sentenced in 2015 for a drug offense but the court failed to specify whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to his 2011 sentences. A second minute entry filed after the hearing stated sentences would run concurrently, but at a subsequent hearing the court ordered consecutive sentences.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Watring, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts retain jurisdiction to correct sentences that fail to comply with statutory requirements and when minute entries can be corrected as clerical errors.
Background and Facts
Watring was sentenced in 2011 on drug charges and placed on probation. In 2015, he committed new drug offenses and was sentenced again. However, at the February 2015 sentencing hearing, the court failed to specify whether the new sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to the 2011 sentences. The original minute entry left this section blank. Two days later, the court filed a second minute entry stating “All cases and charges may run concurrent.” At a subsequent February 10 hearing, the court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Watring later moved to correct the sentence, arguing the second minute entry created a valid concurrent sentence.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two main issues: whether the trial court had jurisdiction to correct the sentence under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(e), and whether the second minute entry constituted a clerical error under Rule 30(b).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the original sentence was illegal because it violated Utah Code Section 76-3-401(1), which requires courts to specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively. Since the sentence omitted “a term required to be imposed by statute,” it remained subject to correction. The second minute entry was a clerical error because it did not reflect what the court intended, was made in recording rather than rendering judgment, and was clear from the record that no concurrent/consecutive determination had been made.
Practice Implications
This case underscores the importance of ensuring all statutory sentencing requirements are addressed on the record. Courts retain jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences until properly corrected, and practitioners should carefully review minute entries to ensure they accurately reflect court proceedings and intentions.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Watring
Citation
2017 UT App 100
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150841-CA
Date Decided
June 22, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court retains jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence that omits a statutorily required determination of whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively, and may correct clerical errors in minute entries that do not reflect the court’s intent.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including subject matter jurisdiction and interpretation of procedural rules
Practice Tip
Always ensure minute entries accurately reflect what occurred in court and verify that all statutorily required sentencing determinations are made on the record to avoid later challenges.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.